The pursuit of revision against an order that has withstood judicial scrutiny and the failure to challenge it earlier constitutes an abuse of process.

Gopinathan, J.

1. Late T.K.Krishnaveni, the mother of the first respondent was working as a Lower Primary School Assistant in the school run by the appellant. On 4.9.1979 she died in harness. The first respondent who was born on 6.12.1973 was below six years on the date of death of her mother. On attaining majority she submitted a representation on 31.12.1991 along with application dated 12.12.1991 in the prescribed form seeking employment under Rule 51B of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. But, there was no response. On 17.10.2003 she made another application. That also didn't yield any result. Thereupon Ext.P1 representation was made on 9.9.2005. Thereafter a reminder was sent on 29.5.2006. The appellant rejected Ext.P1 by Ext.P2 letter dated 2.6.2006. The first respondent took up the matter with the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Educational Officer. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P3 dated 31.5.2007 rejected the representation. On appeal, the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer by Ext.P4 order dated 22.10.2007 allowed the claim made by the first respondent. But, there was no response from the side of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the first respondent moved this Court by filing WP(C)No.11172/2008 for enforcing Ext.P4 which was produced as Ext.P10 in that case. A learned single Judge by judgment dated 19.12.2008, copy of which was produced as Ext.P5 directed the appellant to appoint the first respondent in pursuance of Ext.P4 order as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. As against Ext.P4, the appellant had preferred a revision before the 4th respondent. Thereupon, the appellant moved a petition for review of Ext.P5 judgment. While disposing the review petition, by Ext.R1(a) order dated 2.2.2009, the appellant was directed to offer appointment in pursuance of Ext.P4 order. In that order there is a rider that the appointment shall be subject to the out come of the revision petition that was pending against Ext.P4 order. By Ext.P7 order dated 27.6.2009 the revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Assailing Ext.P7 order the appellant moved WP(C) No.21384/2009. By the impugned judgment dated 12.11.2009, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. However, the appellant didn't care to appoint the first respondent in pursuance to Ext.P5 judgment. Whereas certain others were appointed. The first respondent, therefore filed petition for contempt as Contempt Case (C) No.403/2009. In contempt proceedings the appellant submitted that the first respondent would be appointed within three days. Recording that submission, by Ext.R1(b) judgment dated 10.12.2009 produced by the first respondent along with IA.No.1295/2009 closed the contempt petition with liberty to the first respondent to reopen the same if necessary. After submitting before the learned single Judge in Ext.R1(b) proceedings that the first respondent would be given appointment within three days, this Writ Appeal was filed.

2. The learned counsel for the first respondent entered appearance and took notice. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant, counsel for the first respondent and the Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4 were heard.

3. Having heard either side, we find that in the light of Ext.P5, this Writ Appeal is an abuse of process. The 3rd respondent by Ext.P4 in exercise of appellate powers vested under Rule 8 directed the appellant to appoint the first respondent under Rule 51B. Ext.P4 order withstood the judicial scrutiny by this Court as evidenced by Ext.P5 judgment. Despite that, the appellant preferred the revision before the Government. By Ext.P7 order, in revision also, Ext.P4 was confirmed. Now, the contention is that revision is a statutory remedy available to the appellant under the Kerala Education Rules and that when the order in revision went against the appellant he is entitled to assail the same before this Cou